Iraqi insurgent groups confident of victory - Report.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The UN is a US puppet! It can't be trusted!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by PLATO


Apparently that super pro US organization called the UN agrees with you.

U.N. calls Iraq vote Credible

Of course, I guess we should believe techumseh as opposed to the rest of the world.

This is such a good example of how far the anti-U.S. crowd will go to say anything the U.S. is involved in is "rigged" or "exploitive" or "evil".

What a myopic point of view.

Unlike other posters here, I don't mind who organizes the election, as long as it's transparent. But still give me a break. People were voting for parties fielding thousands of armed thugs, bombs were exploding a few days before (and after).
Someone has to explain me how they managed to count ballots fairly in a place where a private militias taking a mid-sized town is daily routine.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The UN is a US puppet! It can't be trusted!

Come on Imran, you know that's not true. Didn't Rush Limbaugh once say it was dominated by the commies?

I did find the same story in the W.P., here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...122801309.html

So it looks official after all. At least the best that could be expected from an election organized by an occupying foriegn power.

Tell me then, if this election represents the will of the Iraqi people, why the insurrection is on the verge of succeeding?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you'll note, the two major parties (which match up to the two major sects) don't particularly like each other. Each one would like nothing better than to dominate the other.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by techumseh

Tell me then, if this election represents the will of the Iraqi people, why the insurrection is on the verge of succeeding?

What gives you the idea that they are on the verge of succeding ?

What is said is that they are more confident because of withdrawal of US troops, but is that proof of they are winning or proof of that they don't know realities ?

About the votings :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4534260.stm

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/29/iraq.elections/index.html

Originally posted by techumseh

And finally, it's a foriegn system imposed by a hated invader. Certain groups were excluded from participating in the elections, eg. the B'aath Party. The Iraqi elections were not free and fair.

I know it's evil to try to impose democracy on a people that has at least 40 years experience in dictatorship, but I think that they will survive it.

About exclusion of certain parties that supported an overthrown dictator from participating in elections, well, that is an old custom used at several other occasions.

[chequita guevara]

For a U.S Defeat in Iraq!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
For a U.S Defeat in Iraq!

I agree so long as that defeat does not increase loss of life or limb for US and allied soldiers and so long as it does not in any way shape or form turn into a defeat for the Iraqi people as well. They've been through enough. Such a defeat is possible. Simply have the US withdrawl followed by the election of a unfriendly iraqi government. If you favor any other sort of defeat you'll have to explain how it would be worth the price.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by BlackCat


What gives you the idea that they are on the verge of succeding ?

That would be the article referenced at the start of the thread.

What is said is that they are more confident because of withdrawal of US troops, but is that proof of they are winning or proof of that they don't know realities ?

How do you defeat an occupying power that is much stronger militarily? You make it too expensive in blood and gold to continue the occupation. Or you demoralize the occupier so they no longer have the will to fight. It's what the Vietnamese did to the Americans and the French, and what the Americans, Indians and Irish did to the British.

I know it's evil to try to impose democracy on a people that has at least 40 years experience in dictatorship, but I think that they will survive it.

Hundreds of thousands have NOT survived it. And the future of this paternalistic experiment is far from clear.

[Az]

Hundreds of thousands have NOT survived it.

Billions, in fact.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Az

Hundreds of thousands have NOT survived it.

Billions, in fact.

He meant hundreds of thousands of billions.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by techumseh


That would be the article referenced at the start of the thread.

Well, then I suggest that you read it carefully, eventually visit the origin of the article.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3953&l=1

The insurgents are becoming confident and think they are winning mainly based upon withdrawal of american troops, but is that true ? Are the americans going because they are loosing or because they don't think it's nessecary to have that many troops present ?

How do you defeat an occupying power that is much stronger militarily? You make it too expensive in blood and gold to continue the occupation. Or you demoralize the occupier so they no longer have the will to fight. It's what the Vietnamese did to the Americans and the French, and what the Americans, Indians and Irish did to the British.

Yep, that is a known tactic that hasn't been used in iraq. The insurgents targets has mainly been civilian iraquis.

Hundreds of thousands have NOT survived it. And the future of this paternalistic experiment is far from clear.

Try 30.000 instead - approx a third of what saddam would have killed in the same period.

You want clear predictions of the future ? Try go back to august last year and claim that in half a year denmark would be the goal of massive hate in the muslim world - if lucky people would just have laughed - if unlucky, nice men in white would secure that you didn't hurt yourself on the rubber walls

[techumseh]

As of Oct/04, the estimated civilian deaths as a result of the occupation were ~ 100,000.

Here's a good article about the report, originally printed in the British medical journal, the Lancet: http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html

The Lancet study suggests that 79% of civilian casualties up to that time were inflicted by coalition forces and that nearly half had been children. The referenced article deals with the campaign to discredit and marginalize the report by the British and American governments:

Soon after the study was published, U.S. and British officials launched a concerted campaign to discredit its authors and marginalize their findings without seriously addressing the validity of their methods or presenting any evidence to challenge their conclusions. Today the continuing aerial bombardment of Iraq is still a dark secret to most Americans and the media present the same general picture of the war, focusing on secondary sources of violence.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by BlackCat

Try 30.000 instead - approx a third of what saddam would have killed in the same period.

An out and out fabrication.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A blood bath is happening now.

It is nothing like the exterminations that'll take place when civil war breaks out.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by techumseh


Do you remember the two Brits that were captured by the Shiites in Basra a few months ago that the British rescued by armed force? If you paid attention at the time, the Shiites alleged that they were masquerading as Arabs and were planning to place bombs. Their pictures in prison were released by the Shiites.

I don't recall the captors having demonstrated bomb making material taken from them. If they were part of a plot to place bombs in Shia mosques shouldn't they have had the material with which to do so? Also the bombings began long before they were captured, continued while they were in custody and continued after they were released. You'd think that once the operation's cover was blown the coalition military would have shut it down. Heck, the two guys were even your basic anglo-saxon types. Britain has lots of middle easterners, yet you say they would choose a pair of honkies who would stick out like sore thumbs out in the Iraqi public. You'd think that if the operation was conducted with that kind of sloppy planning that the Iraqi police would be picking up coalition saboteurs left and right.

The story disappeared faster than snow in the Saharra. Western media ran the photos with the men's faces blurred, then dropped the story.

You bet it did! British forces attacked an Iraqi government builkding. That's a prety good reason to quash the inerest of the media.

So perhaps there is more bombing going on than can be accounted for by al Queda and the rest of the resistance and perhaps it's INTENDED to split the opposition to the occupation by fomenting civil war. And maybe the Iraqi's are smart enough to figure it out.

Once again - how stupid would coalition intelligence have to be to use pasty faced light haired Englanders to conduct clandestine sabotage missions in Iraq?